Sunbury v. Aaron
| Decision Date | 01 February 1909 |
| Citation | 136 Mo. App. 222,116 S.W. 431 |
| Parties | SUNBURY v. AARON. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thos. J. Seehorn, Judge.
Action by M. B. Sunbury against Edward Aaron. From a judgment of the circuit court for plaintiff on appeal from justice court, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
M. B. Aaron, for appellant. Joseph P. Fontron and Daniel O'Byrne, for respondent.
Action on a contract brought before a justice of the peace. A jury was waived in the circuit court, where the cause was tried on appeal, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff in the sum of $65.38. Defendant appealed.
In 1904 plaintiff lived in Hutchinson, Kan., and was the sole owner of the hunting privileges on certain lakes and marshes west of Hutchinson. Defendant lived in Kansas City, and was a dealer in poultry and game. It is alleged in the statement filed with the justice that on or about September 17, 1904, plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract, by the terms of which plaintiff agreed to sell and defendant to purchase, at stated prices, all of the wild ducks shot by plaintiff and his subhunters on the lakes and marshes controlled by plaintiff during the season ending January 1, 1905; that pursuant to the contract plaintiff, prior to October 25, 1904, delivered to defendant the ducks thus obtained; and that defendant failed to pay the full contract price for the ducks, and is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $61.50. It appears from the evidence that between September 17 and October 29, 1904, defendant, through an agent stationed by him at the hunting grounds, purchased all the ducks shot by the subhunters of plaintiff, and paid them the prices they were to receive under their contracts with plaintiff, which prices were less than plaintiff was to receive from defendant under the terms of the written contract pleaded. It is not denied by defendant that he would be indebted to plaintiff in the amount for which judgment was rendered if the written contract were in force at the time the game was delivered, but he contends that the contract was not then in force, and that in buying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Springfield Gas & Elec. Co. v. Graves
...v. Prairie Oil Co., 28 F.2d 590; Wilson & Co. v. The American, etc., Co., 33 F.2d 812; Lehigh v. Zanes, 46 F.2d 848; Sunbury v. Aaron, 136 Mo.App. 222, 116 S.W. 431; American, etc., Co. v. Walker, 87 Mo. 503; v. Pennoch, 31 Mo.App. 544. (3) The Federal Light and Traction Company was the ben......
-
Mabry v. Swift & Co.
...the contract became binding upon both parties by reason of the acceptance by defendant of Wyatt's performance of it. Sunbury v. Aaron, 136 Mo.App. 222, 225, 116 S.W. 431; General Accident & Life Ins. Co. v. Owen Bldg. Co., 195 Mo. App. 371, 375, 192 S.W. 145; 13 C.J. p. 305; 17 C.J.S., Cont......
-
General Accident Fire & Life Ins. Co. v. Owen Bldg. Co.
...Ex'rs, 158 Mo. 282, 59 S. W. 239; American Pub. Co. v. Walker, 87 Mo. App. 503; Stone v. Pennock, 31 Mo. App. 544; Sunbury v. Aaron, 136 Mo. App. 222, 225, 116 S. W. 431. The acceptance and retention of the policies by defendant showed its intention to be bound and its intention to perform ......
-
Dixon v. Folkes
...validates the instrument, and imposes on the acceptor the corresponding obligation provided therein.” (quoting Sunbury v. Aaron, 136 Mo.App. 222, 116 S.W. 431, 432 (1909))); Rush v. Atomic Electric Co., 384 So.2d 1067, 1068 (Ala.1980) (“A party, by his actions and acceptance of the benefits......